As in, what is the slowest/cheapest/least exotic/most mundane car that you would consider a supercar? I’ve seen this topic has come up a number of times and there never is a consensus, and now I want to see the Oppo bell curve on it.

Requirements:

Explicitly declare what decade/generation of cars you are referring to, as it would be unfair to directly compare a 1960's car to a 1990's car to a current gen car. If no declaration is made, the context is the current era of cars.

Instead of labeling specific criteria, an example car can be given as the subjectively least significant car that you would consider a supercar, as long as the reasons are given.

I’ll start. For the current generation of cars, I feel that the supercar boundary emerges right at the Audi R8 V10 RWS trim.

It makes 532 hp, goes from 0-60 in about 3.7 seconds, and costs $130k+, so it’s hardly a slouch, but that just places it barely mid-pack amongst its peers in just about any category. Anything slower (1/4 mi or lap time,) more mundane, less expensive, or otherwise inferior I couldn’t justify as a supercar. This is the bottom rung for me.

Compare that to one I don’t consider a supercar, the current day Nissan GT-R Base.

Advertisement

The GT-R Base is the most expensive most performative car I can think of that I would not consider a supercar.

The performance numbers improve incrementally with revisions to keep it relevant to the Church of Speed, and the price has also gone up to reflect its aspirational status and cost, but for me, in a world of modern Camaro ZL1 1LEs, Porsche Panamera Turbo S’s, and GT350Rs, it no longer accomplishes the same giant slaying domination it used to. Also it doesn’t really look like how I would imagine a supercar to be - granted, I am hugely biased towards mid-rear design.

Advertisement

It’s even technically faster than the Audi R8 in some contexts I listed as a supercar, but its other qualities keep it outside of my classifications.